I don't think the writer meant to destroy the credibility of the UN with this piece but that they did. The United Nations has now decided that since the security situation is so much better in Iraq, it is time for them to come back and play The Little Red Hen.
The story, however, removes any air of credibility that the UN might still have.
Iraq PM Pledges Security For U.N.
UNITED NATIONS -- Iraq's prime minister said his government would provide any necessary security for an expanded United Nations presence in his country.
I'm glad the struggling young democracy of Iraq can now protect UN peacekeepers.
How pathetic.
As a reminder, the UN left Iraq when -after they refused U.S. military protection- they lost 22 people when a bomb attack destroyed their office. Now that the security situation has improved the UN wants to stick their nose back in. -- It might have been nice though if the UN would have stuck around to do some of the the heavy lifting.
This puts the Democrats in an awkward situation. To the Democrats, there is nothing more sacrosanct that the United Nations. If the UN says the surge is working and they want to go back in, how do the Democrats claim the surge is a failure and that we need to pull out?
The surge is working, better than anyone imagined, but that does not mean -by any stretch- this thing is won. Assuming the UN is a team player, I welcome all the hands we can get, but the UN should remember that when Iraq needed them, the UN ran like cowards. For any lumps and warts the U.S. presence in Iraq has had, we've been committed to the cause of building a better Iraq and we've sacrificed greatly to achieve it.
The UN should give a firm commitment to -not the coalition- but to the Iraqi people that if they lose a few people they will not cut and run again. The UN should also work WITH the United States and the Government of Iraq, not come onto the scene demanding things be done their way.
I'll be interested to see the behavior of the UN in the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon era. The Kofi Annan era hurt the UN badly. Perhaps there is hope they will live up to their noble mission.
I for one, will have to be convinced.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Iraq
Comments (14)
The surge is working and th... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Jo | September 24, 2007 7:14 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The surge is working and the Prez of Iran, much to the Kos Kids dismay, got some tough questions.
My condolences to you lefties.
1. Posted by Jo | September 24, 2007 7:14 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2007 19:14
2. Posted by Marvin | September 24, 2007 7:50 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
The surge is working,
and will work as long as
the US remains committed to Iraq.
But the Democrats are invested in our defeat,
and they will work hard to bring about our defeat
as long as they can avoid blame for doing it.
President Bush needs to make a treaty with Iraq, a 10-15 year security and assistance treaty.
That would be a formal long-term commitment to the people of Iraq, instead of the year to year mandate from the UN.
2. Posted by Marvin | September 24, 2007 7:50 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2007 19:50
3. Posted by ODA315 | September 24, 2007 8:33 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
These esteemed diplomats must not have gotten enough during the "oil for food" era and are back for seconds, thirds, forths.......
I'm sure the Iraq's will be glad to see 'um return....lololol.
3. Posted by ODA315 | September 24, 2007 8:33 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2007 20:33
4. Posted by apb | September 24, 2007 8:54 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Eh -
This couldn't be the same UN that sold out the Iraqi population in Oil-for-Food , could it?
ODA315 has it down pat - back to the trough for more slop...
4. Posted by apb | September 24, 2007 8:54 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2007 20:54
5. Posted by JLawson | September 24, 2007 9:04 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Marvin -
Excellent idea... but the Dems showed in '75 what they thought of aid and assistance agreements, cutting VietNam off from US aid. And what happened after that... well, it wasn't THEIR fault! WE weren't even over there any more, so how could we cause the slaughter that ensued?
I can see the Democratic leadership doing the same thing again in 2009 if a treaty like this is passed, cutting off all aid and assistance to Iraq so the money can be used for the crisis du jour here at home. If nothing else, they'd repudiate it because it'd be a poke in Bush's eye, and who really gives a shit about dead Iraqis anyway? It's not like they can VOTE or something.
5. Posted by JLawson | September 24, 2007 9:04 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2007 21:04
6. Posted by Justrand | September 24, 2007 9:30 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Geez, when the evidence of victory is such that even the U.N. can't ignore it, then it MUST be pretty freaking obvious!
Of course, their first question on getting back in will be: "Where's OUR cut??"
6. Posted by Justrand | September 24, 2007 9:30 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2007 21:30
7. Posted by RobLACal | September 24, 2007 10:02 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"and who really gives a shit about dead Iraqis anyway? It's not like they can VOTE or something."
Vote democrat , right?
7. Posted by RobLACal | September 24, 2007 10:02 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2007 22:02
8. Posted by jpm100 | September 24, 2007 10:45 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
They're getting in on the ground floor for when HillOramaTM hands Iraq over to UN exploitation again.
8. Posted by jpm100 | September 24, 2007 10:45 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2007 22:45
9. Posted by JLawson | September 24, 2007 10:46 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Well, of course!
That was the problem with Viet Nam. If they'd been able to vote the Democratic ticket (or vote at all, for that matter) the Dems would have fallen all over themselves to provide the best equipment and support possible. As it was, they couldn't vote... so why keep supporting their worthless little country?
After all, there were more important things back home to worry about.
9. Posted by JLawson | September 24, 2007 10:46 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2007 22:46
10. Posted by Carl | September 24, 2007 11:17 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
It is quite ironic. The government of Iraq is guaranteeing security for the United Nations presence there just three years after Democratic presidential candidates were suggesting we replace U.S. troops with UN peacekeepers to provide security for the Iraqi government.
Also, this is four years after an internal UN investigation declared the UN security systems and procedures to be "dysfunctional".
10. Posted by Carl | September 24, 2007 11:17 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2007 23:17
11. Posted by 89 | September 25, 2007 12:54 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"This couldn't be the same UN that sold out the Iraqi population in Oil-for-Food , could it?"
This is one of those yes-and-no things. The UN is a huge organization, and the people who were actually trying to help the Iraqis form a government were probably good guys - but the people calling the shots on security were in hindsight misguided. If they didn't want US troops providing security for them for image reasons - fine - but then be at least as bad-ass and professional about it as the US troops are.
As for those ankle-biters back in New York - Oil For Food LOL.
11. Posted by 89 | September 25, 2007 12:54 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 25, 2007 00:54
12. Posted by Scrapiron | September 25, 2007 12:59 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I think you guys have it pegged. The democrats will cut and run if there is no (Chinese) money in it for them. Evidently the loved the blood of 3 to 5 million on their hands in Southeast Asia so you can bet they're out for more and they could care less whose it is. Right now 95% of the deaths in Iraq since the start of the war can be layed at the feet of the defeatest democrats in congress and their sheeple. The democrats lie to themselves and deny it's their failure, and the blood is on their hands, but that doesn't make anything they say truthful. It must be really sad to be one of today's cowardly democrats.
12. Posted by Scrapiron | September 25, 2007 12:59 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 25, 2007 00:59
13. Posted by kim | September 25, 2007 7:21 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
The war in Iraq is over and the globe is cooling. You think I'm joking.
==========================
13. Posted by kim | September 25, 2007 7:21 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 25, 2007 07:21
14. Posted by WildWillie | September 25, 2007 7:32 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I hope the Iraq's lock up or hide the little girls. The UN's coming. Disgusting organization. ww
14. Posted by WildWillie | September 25, 2007 7:32 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 25, 2007 07:32